Centralization of Governing Authority on the Presidency: Part II

by: Daniel De Groot

Wed Dec 31, 2008 at 11:25


In part I, we examined the initial cabinets of a couple administrations that took office from the other party, and whether or not sitting Senators and Governors were apparently willing to give up those posts to become Secretaries.  As late as 1980, it was rare for sitting high office holders to surrender their independent power base posts for the task of serving under someone else.  Under Bush 43 and now Obama, this has clearly changed as Senators and Governors line up for posts.  

Inside, let's examine what might be behind this shift.  The short version is simply that the Presidency has become so much more powerful, that being a Governor or Senator is to be in general less powerful than being Vice-President or in Cabinet.  

Obviously mileage will vary.  States vary considerably in size, so giving up the Governor's mansion in Vermont is hardly the same as doing so for Florida.  Senators vary in power according to their role in the caucus and committee seating.  Cabinet roles vary considerably too, from the heavy hitters of Defense and State to much lower profile and lower budget portfolios.  So it shouldn't surprise us that the Senators who took spots in Obama's cabinet got powerful roles but were junior in the Senate, and the Governors who have joined were from medium states.  Not sure what to make of Blagojevich's interest in a cabinet post, because Illinois is huge, but perhaps that was just the particular circumstances he was facing.  
Daniel De Groot :: Centralization of Governing Authority on the Presidency: Part II
So What is Going On?  The Senate

This is ground well covered these days by writers like Glenn Greenwald and Kagro X.  Simply, Congress has over time, lost its status as co-equal to the Presidency.  The value of being a Senator in terms of actual power to control policy has declined.  In the past, some used to describe the Senate as 100 Kings.  Now, Congress has to beg to have its subpoenas obeyed and DoJ views prosecuting those held in Contempt of Congress as optional (thanks to a Reagan era DoJ memo).  Congress' power over declaring war has become extremely tenative, with both Presidents Bush agreeing to allow Congress to authorize their wars in the middle east only after it was made clear (via begging) such a vote would pass overwhelmingly.  More recently Bush Jr's use of signing statements and absurd post-modern interpretationism of clearly stated legislation have further decreased the power of Congress.

Condoleezza Rice even hinted that Bush could fund the Iraq war without Congress' approval if they pulled funding.  Congress has fallen far from the days of FDR, where he had to wheedle and skim to get Destroyers for Bases and Lend-Lease past the isolationists.  LBJ needed the Gulf of Tonkin to get his war rolling and Jimmy Carter had a really difficult time passing legislation out of a Democratic congress.  

The Governors

At the State level, the story is similar, albeit involving far less malfeasance and more a story of the organic evolution of federalism in the United States toward becomming a unitary state.  It is long story, but can be summarized in the increasing scope of authority given the Federal government under the commerce clause, and the decreasing scope given to the 10th Amendment.  While there is a strong case to be made for the desirability of a stronger Federal government (avoiding civil wars is nice), if that centralization is combined with the Presidency growing in scope and power within the Federal government it does become dangerous.  In Canada, very strong Provinces act as a real check on Ottawa, and in particular on powerful Prime Ministers.   Thus, the centralization of power on the PM and Cabinet is less of a concern since there are 10 Premiers who can usually pull the PM up short if s/he overreaches.  The 50 Governors have no such ability (or unity) in the US, and have not for quite some time.  This story can be demonstrated quite simply in financial terms.

In 2005, the expenditure by level of government in the US looked like this:

LevelSpending
Federal$2472B
State$1068B
Municipal$1300B
Federal/State Ratio2.31

Not only does the Federal Government command over twice what all the States combined do, it turns out the States are beat out by the municipalities too.  

Here's Canada for 2005 (figures Cdn, but it doesn't matter since it's the ratio I'm more concerned with):

LevelSpending
Federal$204B
Provincial$246B
Municipal$55B
Federal/Prov Ratio0.83

For further comparison, in 2005, the State of California had a total budget of just under $120B.  California has more people than Canada and a higher GDP at about $1.5T.  Yet its state budget is far less than just the Federal level spending in Canada.  

Then if you compare that $120B maximum budget for a State, to the various portions of the US Federal Budget, you can see how controlling even one slice of that pie is usually sweeter than having a whole State to play with.  Governor Napolitano had about $9B to oversee while Secretary Napolitano gets to spend $36B.  

For a sense of how this has changed, let's compare the US ratios at the time of the two Presidents I discussed:

1980:
LevelSpending
Federal$591B
State$431B
Federal/State Ratio1.37

1932:
LevelSpending
Federal$4.3B
State$8.4B
Federal/State Ratio0.51

From a Federal/State ratio of 0.51 to 2.31 Federal dollars for every dollar spent by states.  The 2008 Ratio will be 2.36 and 2009 even worse, but I think the $700B bailout and coming stimulus kind of skew the math here.  

I think this answers Chris' implied question about how a sitting governor could leave her State to a Republican in exchange for a Cabinet post.  It's just no fun being a Governor in the US anymore.  No wonder Sarah Palin was so loath to go back to it.

This is centralization in action.  

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Centralization of Governing Authority on the Presidency: Part II | 11 comments
Worth waiting for (4.00 / 2)
Well done, and genuinely interesting. One wonders what the impact would be if the states once again permitted themselves the luxury of deficit spending. Particularly in California, that might be a very interesting development.
i think you may be on to something, but... (4.00 / 2)
I fairly sure you don't have enough data points to draw conclusions.  I feel like there are a multiplicity of drivers for these effects, even with one person.   There may be other reasons that just pure power, that are causing these positions to be filled this way.  

I think the consolidation of power in corporate entities is pulling more power to the federal entity.  We need a lot of ability to either control or (better) break up the coporate megas.  Though it is probably too late for this.

For all their noise, ultra conservatives, conservatives did not cry out when Bush did his work to consolidate and expand federal power.  Of course, now they will.  hypocrits.

fair point (4.00 / 1)
There's definitely a lot more going on than what I'm describing.  
[ Parent ]
Working for the Man (4.00 / 5)
Barack Obama has an 82% approval rating, a mandate, and Democrats control both houses of congress.  And with the sorry shape the country is currently in, it appears that all the stars are aligned for an eager cabinet official to actually get some things accomplished.

Congress on the other hand has a 20% approval rating.  Where would you rather work?  I would much rather work for Obama than I would Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Excellent post (0.00 / 0)
It would be good to elaborate further on the increasing powerlessness of the U.S. Congress versus the Imperial Executive, especially considering the failure of Congress in the last two years to stand up to the president.
Yes (4.00 / 1)
I cut that part short partly out of laziness on the feeling that readers here would be at least familiar with those issues, having seen them play out so often in real time.  However, writing about it more certainly would be remiss.  

Thanks.

[ Parent ]
you're comparing apples and oranges... (4.00 / 2)
From what I learned in graduate school, US municipalities are creations of the states in which they reside.  I assume the same is true in Canada.  So, when you compare federal vs. state or provincial power you should add state and municipal spending together and compare it to federal spending.  If you do this you still find that provinces are more powerful in Canada, but the difference isn't so large.

In fact, the most striking difference here is how much US states delegate to municipalities, and how little provinces in Canada do the same.  

no, I don't think so (4.00 / 1)
But great objection to raise.

It's true Provinces "create" municipalities, but the Premier of Ontario can't really say he controls the budget and governing of the municipalities.  The Mayor of Toronto is responsible for a budget larger than the 6 smallest provinces.  I imagine similar things are true in the US for large city mayors.  Actually even more so since the US mayors are on a "strong mayor" system and the US municipalities are more empowered than Canadian ones (US cities can have sales taxes).

Point being the Governor of New York can't really include the budget of NYC in his purview since he doesn't really control it, except for whatever money the State transfers to the cities.

So even though municipalities generally don't have constitutional prerogatives (in theory States or Provinces could try to run municipalities directly), in practice they are an independent level of government.  Normatively, the population would not accept the Government of New York state deciding to abolish elections in New York and let the Governor appoint the Mayor as a State official, responsible to him.  Since cities elect their own officials, raise money through taxes of their own and such, it doesn't strike me correct to just roll them into the state/provincial budget figures.

I did wrestle with how to treat money transfered and settled on counting it at the level it originates.  The US Federal government disperses a great deal of money to the states, but that only gives them more control over state agendas.  It's how they enforce things like the 21 year drinking age and (for a time) the national 55 mph speed limit - power of the purse.  

In Canada, the Provinces rely on Ottawa for a bunch of money, but most of it is unconditional and even the conditional stuff has few, thin strings attached.  Still, as the Provinces discovered in 1995, Ottawa can cut those transfers and leave the provinces hanging out to dry if it suits them.  The person spending the money has more power than the recipient, IMO.

So anyway, the figures above include the money each level sends lower in the total of the higher level.  Follow the links on the US stuff if you want, the site is pretty cool on the breakdown, and does specify how much is transfers from each level.  

[ Parent ]
good points, but I still disagree (4.00 / 2)
First, thanks for pointing out the link - the data is interesting, to say the least.  There are a LOT more federal transfers to state and local governments than I thought; federal transfers are about 1/6 of state and local spending.  Overall, this does give the federal government some influence over local governments, especially with Medicaid spending.

I still think that you should combine state and local government spending, though.  Governors have a LOT more influence over local spending than the federal government has over state spending.  The biggest way is through education formulas.  Almost all states send money to local governments for educational spending, and can influence how local governments work by changing the formulas.  This gives a governor influence over money he or she doesn't raise or spend. Presidents and cabinet members have a lot less influence over states.

My question is how all of this has changed over time.  I agree with you that Canadian Provincial governments have more power than American states do, but American governors still have a LOT of power.  I think that Richardson and Napolitano are leaving early for cabinet positions because they are term-limited.  The real story is about the increase in power of the Presidency vs. Congress.

[ Parent ]
Referenda, etc. (0.00 / 0)
California in particular has lots of constraints on the power of the Governor.  Proposition 13 et. al. effectively puts a stranglehold on the ability of both state and local government to expand spending.  The requirement of a 2/3 vote in the legislature gives the anti-tax fanatics an additional stranglehold.  Finally, the demands of the prison industrial complex soak up spending like crazy.

In NY, the whole three men in a room scenario slows things up immensely.  The Governor is barely the most powerful person in the state, the leader of the Assembly or Senate from the opposition party is nearly as powerful.  This may change enormously but we shall see how things play out.

In NJ, of late, the Bush DOJ inspired rampage of Chris Christie has made local government and the state legislature far less important.

Tax limitation measures impact? (0.00 / 0)
Another issue to look at is state tax limitation measures.  Oregon, following California imposed property tax limitations that basically keep property tax rates below the rate of inflation, thus gradually cutting tax revenues.  These are the primary funding available to local governments.  As services are reduced, and with most local and state governments not able to run deficits, increasingly local road projects are paid for not by the locals using them but by state and federal money.  This is true of many other services.

And has the ironic (for low-tax, state rights conservatives) result of relinquishing more and more control since the financing comes with strings.  And pushing the federal deficit higher to fund that which can't be funded locally.

Centralization of Governing Authority on the Presidency: Part II | 11 comments
Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox